Music and art

@patchouli phil,

I would say that this question is dependent on the definition of art.

So, given these premises:
1.) Art is the products of human creativity (according to WordNet Search - 3.0)
2.) Music is a product of human creativity.

So from this we can conclude that music is art. However, premise #2 is debatable and some might say "Some music is a product of human creativity". An example of music not coming from human creativity would be a computer program designed to create pseudorandom patterns of various tones in such a way that the sounds are organized. Another example would be a person picking up an instrument. They then start with any note and then play another note proceeding the first. If the 2nd note doesn't sound pleasant to the ear in relation to the first then the person tries another note instead. The person does so until there is beautiful organized sound (possibly tries random dynamics and such afterwards). So, if the real premise is "Some music is a product of human creativity" then we can conclude that some music is art.

@Ichthus91,

I would say that the traditional criteria of music being art relies on the motive of the artist.

A true artist can have the motive to make money. As Peter Gabriel said, if you aren't concerned with making money, than you won't mind playing to an empty room.

But there is some line that gets crossed when the motive is virtually to do with art and all to do with money, fame, attention, sex, getting back at your parents or people that called you a loser in school, than at some point it becomes less art and more commerce or egotism.

@Sympathypains,

Sympathypains wrote:

But there is some line that gets crossed when the motive is virtually to do with art and all to do with money

How can we know the motives, though? Mozart was just as concerned with money as a modern composer who writes jingles for TV commercials.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

How can we know the motives, though? Mozart was just as concerned with money as a modern composer who writes jingles for TV commercials.

I'm sorry didn't you just contradict yourself?

You asked how can we know the motives, and then told me what Mozart's motives were. Apparently you do know the motives, at least in this instance, so perhaps you could tell us how you know the motives.

Regarding my statement, you should have left in the disclaimer sentence one before the quote. Yes making money is a motive, or in many cases one can not make the art. The piano Mozart played was payed for with money most likely, as is most people's instruments, practice spaces, and studio time, but as I said there is a line that gets crossed. The more it's about money that is not just there to sustain the artist and the art, generally, but not absolutely it is less art and more commerce. The inverse is also true. It is not one or the other, it is a matter of degree.

How can we know intentions? We can't 100%, but the more experienced, the more intuitive you become. Just like the more times you have seen someone chatting someone up, the better your guess at whether they are in it for the person, or just the sex. Whether a woman is interested in you, or your money, becomes apparent in time.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

How can we know the motives, though? Mozart was just as concerned with money as a modern composer who writes jingles for TV commercials.

Dood you can't tell me that you don't sing along with the Free Credit Report .Com Guy.

@patchouli phil,

If art is defined as a form of self-expression, then yes, music is always art. Whether the art is good or bad is another matter.

@hue-man,

So is fraudulent "art" art? I personally think a lot of so called art looses its credibility by its desire or its motives.I cant call throwing dog ship at a canvas art or spilling paint as an expression of art.
I dont know what it is but it aint art. I have seen some terrible art by amateur artists but the integrity was there, the desire to create came from a certain urge to express themselves, it was art.
Not so these over rated high society investment artist, who kid us with their unmade beds.

@xris,

xris wrote:

So is fraudulent "art" art? I personally think a lot of so called art looses its credibility by its desire or its motives.I cant call throwing dog ship at a canvas art or spilling paint as an expression of art.
I dont know what it is but it aint art. I have seen some terrible art by amateur artists but the integrity was there, the desire to create came from a certain urge to express themselves, it was art.
Not so these over rated high society investment artist, who kid us with their unmade beds.

So you're saying that there needs to be a motive for self-expression for something to be considered art? What if someone makes a mistake why making a painting and finds beauty in the mistake? They even go so far as to develop a meaning for the mistake. Shouldn't that also be considered to be art?

What about Britney Spears? Do you think that her music is art?

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

So you're saying that there needs to be a motive for self-expression for something to be considered art? What if someone makes a mistake why making a painting and finds beauty in the mistake? They even go so far as to develop a meaning for the mistake. Shouldn't that also be considered to be art?

What about Britney Spears? Do you think that her music is art?

If you find something beautiful such as rain running down a window admire it but dont call it art.A mistake can be admired but if the artist claims credit then he is fraudulent.I think when Britney desired to entertain, she was an artist but if and when she performed for other reasons she lost the artistic performance.If you enjoy something it does not make it art and even if you hate it, it does not make it "not art" Its the intention and its execution...

@xris,

xris wrote:

If you find something beautiful such as rain running down a window admire it but dont call it art.A mistake can be admired but if the artist claims credit then he is fraudulent.I think when Britney desired to entertain, she was an artist but if and when she performed for other reasons she lost the artistic performance.If you enjoy something it does not make it art and even if you hate it, it does not make it "not art" Its the intention and its execution...

So let's say that a music producer stumbles while making a beat, and then he realizes that the beat sounds good. He includes the mishap in his revised version of the beat he originally intended. Does that mean that it shouldn't be called art because he discovered the beat by accident?

Doesn't Britney still desire to entertain? She doesn't need the money anymore, so she must be doing it because she enjoys entertaining people.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

So let's say that a music producer stumbles while making a beat, and then he realizes that the beat sounds good. He includes the mishap in his revised version of the beat he originally intended. Does that mean that it shouldn't be called art because he discovered the beat by accident?

Doesn't Britney still desire to entertain? She doesn't need the money anymore, so she must be doing it because she enjoys entertaining people.

Artistic challenge also includes the need to accept what the final outcome must be.A musician reacts to the sounds he hears and attributes them to the final outcome.
As long as Britney is doing it for artistic reasons she is an artist and it is art.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Artistic challenge also includes the need to accept what the final outcome must be.A musician reacts to the sounds he hears and attributes them to the final outcome.
As long as Britney is doing it for artistic reasons she is an artist and it is art.

What are artistic reasons, as you see it?

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

What are artistic reasons, as you see it?

A desire to create and for it to be appreciated.

@xris,

xris wrote:

A desire to create and for it to be appreciated.

Some artists don't care if people don't appreciate their work. I mean they wouldn't mind and it does feel good when people enjoy your work, but some really don't care what other people think about their work.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

Some artists don't care if people don't appreciate their work. I mean they wouldn't mind and it does feel good when people enjoy your work, but some really don't care what other people think about their work.

Their kidding.If you know they created, you know they need appreciation.I have sat for hours drawing or painting, critical of my work but at some stage you need another opinion.

@patchouli phil,

There seems to be another side to opinions too for some artists. Perhaps it comes from some arrogance but not sure.

The situation is when a person only accepts a critical opinion if they highly value the persons opinion. So if they don't think the person has any intellect or "tasteful" personality then any opinion they give will be met with apathy. This doesn't happen with every artist and it even goes beyond art into other aspects of life as well.

@xris,

xris wrote:

Their kidding.If you know they created, you know they need appreciation.I have sat for hours drawing or painting, critical of my work but at some stage you need another opinion.

I'm very selective with music, but do you think that all music is art? I think that all entertainers have a motive behind their music. The primary motive may be money, but it's still self-expression. I think it's more about distinguishing quality from the lack thereof.

@hue-man,

hue-man wrote:

I'm very selective with music, but do you think that all music is art? I think that all entertainers have a motive behind their music. The primary motive may be money, but it's still self-expression. I think it's more about distinguishing quality from the lack thereof.

I may be wrong but i think any one who attempts art for just money only get respect from those who also act for pure profit.
I think it shows.Many start with good intentions but greed becomes the driving force instead of the creative urge.

@xris,

xris wrote:

I may be wrong but i think any one who attempts art for just money only get respect from those who also act for pure profit.
I think it shows.Many start with good intentions but greed becomes the driving force instead of the creative urge.

I agree with you on that. I've see it all of the time in music. The creativity is lost when it's mainly about profit, but I still think it's art because it's self-expression. It's just mediocre art, in the sense that it lacks quality and substance.

Philosophy Forum

Music and art

Quick Links

My Account

able2know